News:

"There is a terrible desperation to the increasingly pathetic rationalizations from the climate denial camp. This comes as no surprise if you take the long view; every single undone paradigm in history has died kicking and screaming, and our current petroleum paradigm 🐉🦕🦖 is no different. The trick here is trying to figure out how we all make it to the new ⚡ paradigm without dying ☠️ right along with the old one, kicking, screaming or otherwise." - William Rivers Pitt

The thesis that a carbon price is unwinnable seems to be based on a premise that winnable fights have to be on grounds that can be "bipartisan" ... and that is the premise that resulted in the politicizing of science and renewable energy policy, since you only have to turn it into a partisan issue to close the door on that bipartisan approach.

Quote

"At the national level, the effort by the extreme right to politicize science funding is a deep threat to progress in developing renewable energy technology. I think de-politicizing and increasing basic science funding and funding renewable energy research and development are winnable battles at the federal level."

The threat to progress in developing renewable energy technology is a large point of the point of politicizing science funding.If people reacting to reality gives an answer that threaten the wealth of large, established and (by definition) wealthy interests, then the immediate pursuit of narrow and short term self interest calls for obscuring reality.

De-politicizing basic science funding and funding renewable energy research and development are winnable battles, but its not likely that they will be won on a "bipartisan" model. There seems to be enough wealth at stake to guarantee dominance of at least one mainstream political party.

So they will most likely have to be won the old fashioned way, of entrenching them in the platform of one mainstream political party, whether by gaining adherence from one or from shattering the current political alignment and rebuilding it anew (as in the 1850's in the US with the collapse of the Whigs over the slavery issue), and then winning that political fight..

How the Transition to Renewable Energy Could Come

by Steven Cohen, Executive Director of Columbia University’s Earth Institute and a Professor in the Practice of Public Affairs at Columbia University’s School of International and Public Affairs.

There are key differences between yesterday’s grid and tomorrow’s grid that should be forefront as we consider the ability of the system to integrate high levels of renewables.

•Advanced communication and IT resources are being deployed to provide grid operators with the information and tools necessary to optimize system operations, markets, and planning.

•The benefits of geographically broad and co-optimized operating and market footprints are becoming increasingly apparent and there are significant initiatives underway globally to leverage the benefits of regional collaboration to support the reliability and economic performance of the grid while also enabling the integration of clean energy resources.

•Commercially available technologies including active power controls on wind turbines and advanced solar inverters are capable of supporting grid operations and reliability, and in some cases they are better equipped to do so than older or inflexible thermal generating units that do not respond well to automated signals.

•Electricity markets have the potential to provide investors and developers with appropriate economic signals to deploy advanced technologies that provide varying combinations of energy, capacity, and ancillary services. The development of market products beyond energy and capacity will increase the value propositions for renewable resources and there are an encouraging number of initiatives underway to augment existing markets and start new markets.

•Increasingly sophisticated distributed resources, demand response, and storage technologies are in the queue to become essential components in a system that leverages the broad capabilities of a diverse set of resources.

•The ongoing retirement of large coal generating units and the decentralization of generation assets are creating a grid that is more flexible, resilient, and better equipped to integrate renewables.

Archbishop Pedro Barreto Jimeno of Huancayo, Peru warned that Francis “will have many critics, because they want to continue setting rules of the game in which money takes first place. We have to be prepared for those kinds of attacks.”

The Pope took his critics into account—making it clear within the text of Laudato Si that his approach to the environment is firmly rooted in traditional Catholic views of the uniqueness of human life and the need for a non-market based common good—drawing a line clarifying that he is not preaching a “new age” form of Catholicism.

Last year, NY Governor Cuomo announced the state's visionary and groundbreaking plan to transition to distributed, renewable energy, "Reforming the Energy Vision," hailed as the most aggressive in the country.

1. Transform utilities to market-based role: Rather than selling energy that's under centralized control, utilities will buy electricity from thousands of small generators that have, for example, solar on their roof. Utilities will make money by linking them together and integrating the energy into the grid.

Utilities must submit their plans to meet these goals by the end of this year.

Energy Efficiency is fast becoming part of the "business psyche" and energy management is considered an essential business strategy, according to a Deloitte survey.

Industries leading the way are technology, media, telecommunications and healthcare.

79% of businesses with more than 250 employees view reducing electricity costs as key to competitive advantage and 57% have formal energy reduction goals, up from 46% just last year.

Almost all - 93% - invested in energy management during the past three years - 17% of capital budgets this year.

They are moving toward energy independence, with 55% saying they generate some electricity on-site, up from 44% last year.

13% of the energy generated on-site comes from solar or wind, 9% from fuel cells, and 9% from combined heat and power.

"Based on the results of the 2014 study, we found that energy was becoming a core business competency. The findings of the 2015 study not only corroborate that result but further suggest a tipping point has been passed: thoughtful, deliberate energy consumption has permeated the business psyche, and companies, by and large, now consider energy management to be an essential aspect of corporate strategy."

Read our article, World Is Moving to Distributed Energy: 165 GW by 2023.

Manufacturers Can Do Much More Although manufacturers are much more efficient - they use 17% less energy than in 2001, they still consume 24% of US energy, according to "Barriers to Industrial Energy Efficiency," by the Department of Energy.

The sector can cut energy use another 15-32% over the next 10 years through demand response and by incorporating efficient equipment such as advanced electric motors, lighting, sensors, controls, and combined heat and power. In other words, most companies are still scratching the surface on efficiency.

Why? Not surprisingly, economic constraints are cited as the main reason, but they also don't make it up on the priority list. Other reasons are perceived lack of returns and too much of a focus on short-term results.

He believes that in less than 10 years nearly all cars will be electric. Also he said bulk storage with batteries will grow faster than predicted. “Our view is that batteries are really going to win” over other energy storage technologies like pumped hydro, compressed air energy storage, even flow batteries, he said. “We are seeing price declines that make a lot of those technologies somewhat stranded,” he added.

“So if we can have solar generation at $0.02-0.03 per kWh and if you can have a levelized cost of a battery that may fall below $0.10 per kWh you suddenly get to have energy that is 100 percent firm and buffered from photovoltaics that is cheaper than fossil energy,” he said. That goal is in “grasping distance” according to Straubel.

Tesla CTO: Bulk Energy Storage Will Grow Much Faster Than People Expect

Calling it "5 Seismic Shifts" in global power generation, Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF) outlines the dominant trends we'll see over the next 25 years.

The big news is the scale of renewable energy investment we are about to see, especially in distributed solar energy. The bad news is that without more radical policies, continued fossil fuel emissions will prevent the world from reaching climate goals.

Power to the People: $2.2 trillion of that will go to rooftop and community-based solar systems, giving individuals and businesses electricity independence by storing it in batteries and giving billions in the developing world access to power for the first time.

Small solar and building-integrated solar will soar from 104 gigawatts in 2014 to nearly 1.8 terawatts in 2040, a 17-fold increase. Prices will drop another 47% per megawatt, conversion efficiencies will improve and the industry will move to new materials and more streamlined production methods.

Solar on House

"Up to now, small-scale solar investment has been dominated by wealthy countries such as Germany, the US and Japan. By 2040, developing economies will have spent $1 trillion on small PV systems, in many cases bringing electricity for the first time to remote villages," says Jenny Chase, chief solar analyst at BNEF.

By 2030, solar will be the cheapest energy resource and by 2040, the cost of wind projects will have dropped another 32%.

In fact, 78% of the $12.2 trillion invested in power generation will be in emerging markets. Renewables will account for two thirds of that, with $1.6 trillion still in coal, $1.2 trillion in gas and $1.3 trillion in nuclear.

For every 1 GW of new build in the Americas, 3.4 GW will be installed in Asia Pacific nations. China alone will attract $3.3 trillion, nearly double that for the Americas, BNEF says.Solar Becomes Top Energy Source in 2018

Looking at the shorter term, GTM Research finds 2018 will be the tipping point for solar, when it achieves grid parity worldwide and becomes the energy of choice. By 2020, the world will be installing 135 gigawatts a year, triple the current pace.

The top countries will be China, US and Japan, and Africa, Latin America and the Mid-East will jump from 1% solar today to 17%.

Demand Undershoots: at the same time, ever-increasing energy efficient technologies of all kinds will limit energy demand growth to 1.8% a year, down from 3% a year from 1990-2012. In OECD countries, electricity demand will be lower in 2040 than in 2014.

Gas Flares Briefly: Natural gas will not be the world's "transition fuel" away from coal, except in the US. Many developing nations will opt for a twin-track of coal and renewables.

Climate Peril: Despite $8 trillion in renewable energy investments, there will still be enough fossil-fuel plants to keep world carbon emissions rising until 2029, and in 2040, emissions will still be 13% above 2014 levels. Fossil fuels will still be used for 44% of electricity production, down from 67% in 2014).

Even with much slower energy demand growth, the world will use 56% more electricity - too much of it from coal - as population and economies expand in developing countries.

"The CO2 content of the atmosphere is on course to exceed 450 parts per million by 2035 even if emissions stay constant, so the trend we show of rising emissions to 2029 makes it very unlikely that the world will be able to limit temperature increases to less than 2 degrees Centigrade," says Seb Henbest, head of Europe, Middle East and Africa for BNEF.

"The message for international negotiators preparing for the Paris climate change conference in December is that current policy settings - even combined with the vast strides renewables are making on competitiveness - will not be enough. Further policy action on emissions will be needed," he adds.

The analysis, however, leaves out key policies that have yet to be put in place, such as EPA's Clean Power Plan in the US or China's cap-and-trade systems, which starts official operations next year. In proceeding years, a worldwide cap-and-trade system will likely coalesce.

Read our articles, World Emissions Can - and Must - Peak By 2020 and Stabilizing Our Atmosphere Costs $44 trillion through 2050.

2014 was another big year for renewable energy worldwide - for the first time, over 100 gigawatts (GW) were installed in one year.

The 103 GW added - mostly solar and wind - equals the output of all US nuclear plants combined, and is a significant increase from previous years - 86 GW in 2013, 89 GW in 2012 and 81 GW in 2011.

Renewables are edging toward supplying 10% of the world's power. They contributed 9.1% of all electricity in 2014, up from 8.5% the previous year, and that doesn't include big hydro.

The industry grew 17% with $270 billion invested, according to the 9th Annual Global Trends in Renewable Energy Investment 2015, by the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) and Bloomberg New Energy Finance.

Even sharply lower oil prices didn't stop the growth, thanks to major expansions of solar in China and Japan and record investments in offshore wind.

"Once again in 2014, renewables made up nearly half of the net power capacity added worldwide" says Achim Steiner, UN Under-Secretary-General and Executive Director of UNEP.

Quote

"There is now nobody who thinks the energy system of the future will look like the energy system of the past," says Michael Liebreich, advisory board chair for Bloomberg New Energy Finance.

Solar and wind continue to dominate with 92% of all investments. Solar jumped 25% to $150 billion - its second highest figure ever - and wind rose 11% to a record $99.5 billion. 49 GW of wind and 46 GW of solar PV were added, both records.

Seven $1 billion-plus offshore wind projects were approved in Europe, including the biggest one ever - the $3.8 billion 600 megawatt Gemini project in the Netherlands. Geothermal grew 23% to $2.7 billion invested, but biofuels, biomass and small hydro declined.

Renewable Energy Growth Worldwide 2014 (graphic at link below)

China saw record investments of $83.3 billion (up 39% from 2013) and the US came in second at $38.3 billion, up 7% on the year. Japan is third at $35.7 billion, a 10% increase and its biggest year yet.

Read our articles, World Wind Industry Grows 44% in 2014 and Solar Set To Soar Worldwide This Year, 36% Growth!

President Obama’s state visit to Kenya and Ethiopia has involved a good deal of scolding of those countries by Western pundits. On some matters, the chiding should go in the other direction. On the issues of green energy and climate change, Ethiopia has announced initiatives that put the United States to shame.

The U.S. commits an annual crime against the earth by emitting 5.4 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide, whereas these African countries live cleanly in this regard. They are intent on growing economically in an environmentally friendly way. On the most important environmental and economic issue of our day, the U.S. is an unrepentant and even bullying fossil-fuel dinosaur, whereas young Africa is awakening to the benefits of renewable energy.

Rising retail prices for grid electricity and declining costs for solar PV and batteries mean that grid-connected solar-plus-battery systems will be economic within the next 10–15 years for many customers in many parts of the country.

Utilities could see significant decline in energy sales that would support needed grid investment.

Thus it's critical that utilities, regulators, and other electricity system stakeholders urgently pursue reform on three fronts—rate structures, utility business models, and regulatory frameworks—to embrace solar, batteries, and other DERs as an integral, optimized part of the future grid, rather than as a threat to that grid.

Ever had one of those moments where you turn on the television and stumble onto a show from decades back that you can’t believe is even on any more? If you’re in the U.S., something like Wheel of Fortune or The Price Is Right? (And this is one of those rare instances of universal harmony where every nation has its own version). But there it is, still making the rounds with the host looking as indeterminately aged as ever and an audience dressed for today. And you can’t help thinking, “Wait, people still watch this?”

Here at Climate Reality, we’ve been having a similar thought hearing senators and media pundits rehearse the tired old claim that switching from fossil fuels to clean energy would be economic suicide: “Wait, people still believe that?”

Because—and here’s the key point—the opposite is true. Look at the list of countries making real commitments to clean energy and you’ll see a list of strong economies that aren’t suffering because they’ve embraced renewables like solar and wind power. In many cases, they’re growing—and kind of like Pat Sajak, it’s time to take the Clean Energy Would Kill the Economy show off the air once and for all.

Changing the Channel in 2015

If this myth has been around for so long, why are we focusing on it now? And why this one in particular?

In a word: Paris. Along with everyone else in the climate community, The Climate Reality Project is working to build support for a global agreement to cut greenhouse gas emissions at the UN talks in Paris later this year. If we’re successful—and world leaders make the kind of emissions reduction commitments that can keep warming within safe limits—the upshot is that we’re going to have to scale down our use of fossil fuels as a planet and scale up renewables in a big, big way.

Naturally, the fossil fuel industry sees an existential threat here and has its spokespeople and government supporters making the rounds to claim that any significant moves in this direction would only kill jobs and destroy the economy. Just look at all the hyperbolic invectives against the EPA’s Clean Power Plan we’re hearing here in the U.S., as one example.

These kinds of claims make for great quotes and conspiracy theories, but when you compare them to what’s already actually happening in the world, they fall apart fast. So in the interest of a little truth-telling, over the next couple weeks, we’re highlighting some of the nations showing that clean energy economies work—and work well—beginning with a few that have been going clean and winning for a while.

Germany

You might have heard of it. You know, the world’s fourth-largest economy by gross domestic product (GDP), industrial powerhouse of Europe, world champions in soccer/football and home of major companies like Volkswagen, Deutsche Bank and Siemens.

Germany began betting big on clean energy long before it was cool, with the government taking its first significant steps to start a nationwide transition from nuclear power and fossil fuels to renewables back in the early 90s (there’s even a typically long and nearly pronounceable German word for this idea: “Energiewende” (or “energy transition”). The results have been pretty spectacular. Among other highlights:

•In 2014, Germany generated more than 27 percent of its electricity with renewables, making clean energy the nation’s primary source of power and cementing its place at the top of the list of solar-powered countries. That same year, it ranked second in the world in most electricity from biopower and third in installed wind power capacity. Not too shabby.

•Meanwhile, the nation set goals of reducing its greenhouse gas emissions by 40 percent from 1990 levels by 2020 and 80 percent by 2050.

•Germany is also working to reduce its primary energy consumption by 20 percent below 2008 levels by 2020 and 50 percent by 2050.

It’s worth remembering that Germany has continued its clean-energy initiatives in the middle of a global recession and all while remaining one of the world’s greatest economic powers. And it somehow beat Brazil 7-1 in Brazil, which suggests there’s very little Germans can’t do when they put their collective wills to it.

Denmark

Just across the border, Denmark has been taking a bit of anything-you-can-do-Germany-we-can-do-better approach to clean energy. While the nation isn’t quite the economic powerhouse of its southern neighbor, it has one of the highest standards of living in the world and has seen steady economic growth in the twenty-first century. And it’s done so while also decreasing both its energy use through ambitious conservation measures and its carbon emissions.

No surprise: renewables are a big part of this story, especially wind. The country set a new world record for wind power by getting more than 39 percent of its power from wind in 2014. Then on July 9 and 10 of this year, Denmark generated 140 percent of its energy needs with wind, sending the surplus power to neighboring nations. Plus, just in case anyone ever wanted to accuse the Danish of lacking ambition, the country aims to go from low-carbon to no-carbon and become completely independent of fossil fuels by 2050. No one on staff at Climate Reality knew Danish for “wow,” but it’s clearly time we learned.

Costa Rica

For any detractors thinking clean energy can only work in advanced economies in Europe, let’s head over to Costa Rica. The nation has taken advantage of its abundant natural resources to create real capacity in small-scale hydroelectric and geothermal power, with the result it generated 100 percent of its electricity with renewables for the first 113 days of this year. Costa Rica is also developing—and attracting investment in—other areas like solar, wind and biofuels and has committed to becoming carbon-neutral by 2021.

So far, all this focus on renewables hasn’t exactly killed the nation’s economy. Instead, Costa Rica has become an upper middle-income country, experiencing steady economic growth over the past 25 years and the World Bank expects its GDP to keep growing around 4 percent annually for the next several years. Pura vida, indeed.

California

Admittedly, California isn’t technically a nation—the whole “California Republic” ethos notwithstanding—but this one state has the seventh-largest economy in the world, ahead of countries like Brazil, Canada and Italy. Which makes it a pretty good test case for clean energy in the U.S.—and something of an embarrassment for the anti-renewable crowd.

So what’s making the Golden State the, um, gold standard on clean energy when it comes to the U.S? The topline here is that through a combination of ambitious efficiency measures, aggressive targets and policies for emissions reduction and a deep commitment to expanding renewables, the state’s been able to do the remarkable and grow its economy without substantially increasing emissions. And not just without increasing emissions, but actually shrinking them by 25 percent per person from 1990—2012, all while growing per-capita GDP by 37 percent in the same period and creating what one report has hailed as the second-greenest economy in the world.

While pulling out all the factors contributing to this achievement would take up a post of its own (if not a book), a few in particular stand out:

•Governor Jerry Brown recently issued an executive order to reduce California’s greenhouse gas emissions by 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030, making it possibly the most ambitious target in North America.

•California is home to the largest carbon market in North America, with a cap and trade system linked with Quebec and soon with Ontario.

•The state has developed both the policies and industry to become the leading state for solar energy in the U.S. and currently is home to the world’s three largest solar power plants. Along the way it became the first U.S. state to top 10 GW of solar capacity—or enough to power nearly 2.6 million homes—while its domestic solar industry employs nearly 55,000 workers across the solar value chain.

Looking at these figures, you have to try hard—really hard—not to reach one conclusion: if the world’s seventh-largest economy can make clean energy work, other nations and states can too. Which gives us a lot of hope looking ahead to negotiations in Paris. You might have heard the saying, “As California goes, so goes the nation.” We sure like the sound of it.

Thank you for this inspiring news. I would add that the coastal wind turbines about 50 to 70 miles south of Fukushima, constructed BEFORE the 2011 tsunami that caused the subsequent meltdowns at the Fukushima nuclear power plant, were unscathed by the tsunami and were the ONLY power source for over a month. Now that's what I call reliable energy! The propagandists for dirty energy that frequent these boards should be reminded of how UNRELIABLE the energy they defend is.

Paul Kangas

The meltdown in Fukushima, Japan caused Japan to shift towards 100% solar. The meltdown in Chernobyl, Russia caused Germany to rush towards solar & a solar payment policy. Germany began paying $0.99 kwh for solar. Japan is paying $0.53 kwh for solar. This is all good. However, we want decentralized solar, locally made, from home roof tops, not giant corporate solar. To ship the energy from these huge projects to homes, where it is needed, you lose 40% of the energy in transmission. Big is not better. That is not "clean" energy.If we build solar homes, each with 100 solar panels, the homes get free energy at the point of use, no transmission costs, and the working class homeowner makes $2,000. / month income from the solar. Small is better. Decentralization. That is clean energy. This also creates jobs that cannot be off-shored. Stop genuflecting every time some Daddy War Bucks builds a large Pen*s.These giant energy plants were built by Fukushima, and that means General Electric and atomic energy money.Stop and think.

reply to Paul Kangas by agelbert

I agree distributed is the best form of renewable energy. But your cost figures for German Solar power per kwh are WAY OFF (German wind is even cheaper!).

"Solar power is already cost-effective, Agora notes. “In the sunny, desert country of Dubai, a long-term power purchase contract was signed recently for 5 cents per kilowatt hour, while in Germany large solar plants deliver power for less than 9 cents. By comparison, electricity from new coal and gas-fired plants costs between 5 and 10 cents per kilowatt hour and from nuclear plants as much as 11 cents.”